On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > Call it sys if it is now only the system call entry points. Agreed with > _64_compat too. > > Breaking up these snarls of spaghetti assembly will be a blessing.
I'm not too picky about what we call it or whether we merge it with entry_64.S. *However*, I think the file name should end in _64.S. The whole arch/x86 tree is arranged such that files that end in _64.S or _64.c are build for 64-bit kernels and not for 32-bit kernels. I see no reason to deviate from that. FWIW, I'm eventually planning to completely rewrite the compat entry points to use the new (RFC patches coming in a week or two I hope!) C exit code with opportunistic sysretl at the end. I'm guessing the result will be about half the size of the current code, and it'll be comprehensible to mere mortals. --Andy > > On June 5, 2015 6:37:14 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: >>On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 03:00:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> I'm wondering what people think about this naming scheme: >>> >>> entry_32.S # 32-bit binaries on 32-bit >>kernels >>> entry_64.S # 64-bit binaries on 64-bit >>kernels >>> entry_64_compat_32.S # 32-bit binaries on 64-bit >>kernels >>> >>> Another option would be: >>> >>> arch/x86/entry/sys_32.S >>> arch/x86/entry/sys_64.S >>> arch/x86/entry/sys_64_compat.S >> >>I like this one better because entry_64_compat_32 kinda has both >>bitness in >>there and confuses me more. >> >>Just my 2 ยข. :) > > -- > Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
